張利/ZHANG Li

2014 WA中國(guó)建筑獎(jiǎng)：緣起與觀察

WACAA 2014: Intensions and Observations

張利/ZHANG Li

建筑獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)與其他文化藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域的獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)一樣，其初衷是對(duì)杰出范例或個(gè)人貢獻(xiàn)的表彰與集粹。然而，從20世紀(jì)中葉至今，隨著當(dāng)代建筑的發(fā)展，建筑獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)逐步脫離了單純表彰與集粹的初衷，而成為建筑價(jià)值觀散布與建筑思潮涌動(dòng)的直接參與者；同時(shí)，建筑獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)也脫離了單純面向?qū)I(yè)人士的目標(biāo)范圍，而是試圖影響業(yè)內(nèi)與業(yè)外的廣泛人群?？梢哉f，建筑獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)被越來越多地賦予了明顯的媒體角色。在此，我們無意判斷這種建筑獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)的媒體化本身的是與非。我們關(guān)注的是，在這種全社會(huì)泛媒體化的語境之中，建筑獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)應(yīng)如何應(yīng)變，才能持續(xù)發(fā)揮其對(duì)建筑文明演進(jìn)的積極作用，而不是淪為消費(fèi)媒體時(shí)代獵奇與悅眾的工具。

WA中國(guó)建筑獎(jiǎng)由王路教授創(chuàng)立于2002年，是中國(guó)大陸地區(qū)首次以當(dāng)代中國(guó)建筑師的自主實(shí)驗(yàn)為唯一關(guān)注的獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)。問世之初，它便通過鮮明的個(gè)性、毫不折衷的勇氣和完全獨(dú)立的評(píng)委判斷而得到了各界的認(rèn)可與支持。后歷經(jīng)10余年持續(xù)數(shù)屆的努力，WA中國(guó)建筑獎(jiǎng)已成為了最受關(guān)注的中國(guó)非官方建筑獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)之一，也是當(dāng)代中國(guó)的非官方建筑獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)謀求國(guó)際影響力的一個(gè)示例。

10余年間,國(guó)際與中國(guó)建筑語境發(fā)生了很多變化，這是包括WA中國(guó)建筑獎(jiǎng)在內(nèi)的所有中國(guó)建筑獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)必須面對(duì)的現(xiàn)實(shí)。如果說10年前，既定規(guī)則的破除、陌生形式的沖擊與大眾回饋的瞬時(shí)效應(yīng)曾經(jīng)是建筑獲得社會(huì)關(guān)注的原因的話，那么在今天，環(huán)境資源的可持續(xù)性、廣義的人的平等生存以及傳統(tǒng)智慧的重新發(fā)現(xiàn)與詮釋則正在成為建筑貢獻(xiàn)于當(dāng)代文明的最佳可能。不僅如此，隨著在世紀(jì)之交得勢(shì)的少數(shù)形式極端主義者在各地的騷動(dòng)與干擾，“設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)驗(yàn)”一詞不可避免地被濫用、曲解和狹義化，其原有的積極意義也持續(xù)地被個(gè)別國(guó)際建筑明星的自我營(yíng)銷與精英主義所折衷。面對(duì)這些變化，WA中國(guó)建筑獎(jiǎng)需要以更開放的方式呈現(xiàn)、推崇在當(dāng)代中國(guó)建筑中產(chǎn)生的更多樣的價(jià)值。

有鑒于此，《世界建筑》的團(tuán)隊(duì)征求了王路教授與其他相關(guān)學(xué)者、建筑師的意見，對(duì)2014年的WA中國(guó)建筑獎(jiǎng)在價(jià)值取向界定、獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)設(shè)置、評(píng)委會(huì)構(gòu)成以及評(píng)審過程等方面進(jìn)行了調(diào)整，多元化是所有這些調(diào)整的基本主題。這其中，最重要的多元化是獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)設(shè)置的多元化——通過WA獎(jiǎng)輔助更多有意義的建筑追求在業(yè)內(nèi)外得到肯定與尊重。

2014年的WA中國(guó)建筑獎(jiǎng)共包含了6個(gè)獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)：

設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)驗(yàn)獎(jiǎng)延續(xù)了WA獎(jiǎng)的原有取向，并進(jìn)一步將核心價(jià)值定義為設(shè)計(jì)的自主探索，獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)那些在理念或建筑本體層面上的卓有成效的實(shí)驗(yàn)性成果。與前幾屆WA獎(jiǎng)相比，本屆的設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)驗(yàn)獎(jiǎng)增加了對(duì)建筑規(guī)模的限制（3000m2以下）。這一新增的規(guī)模限制也引發(fā)了一些相關(guān)的討論。

社會(huì)公平獎(jiǎng)的核心價(jià)值是以建筑推進(jìn)社會(huì)公平，獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)那些服務(wù)于社會(huì)弱勢(shì)群體的，通過建筑手段推進(jìn)社會(huì)公平、踐行人文關(guān)懷的成果。這一獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)的設(shè)置所面對(duì)的是當(dāng)前中國(guó)社會(huì)的重要問題之一：如何使財(cái)富、機(jī)會(huì)更均衡地分布，以造福于更多的人和更廣泛的地域。

城市貢獻(xiàn)獎(jiǎng)的核心價(jià)值是大型公共項(xiàng)目對(duì)城市生活的積極作用，獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)那些以積極有力的介入為城市環(huán)境與城市生活所作出的突出貢獻(xiàn)。這一獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)的設(shè)置面對(duì)的是當(dāng)前中國(guó)城市化進(jìn)程中的主流公共建筑項(xiàng)目。

居住貢獻(xiàn)獎(jiǎng)的核心價(jià)值是居住品質(zhì)和居住環(huán)境的提升，獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)那些對(duì)居住模式與居住環(huán)境問題的卓越解決方案。無需贅述，這一獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)的設(shè)置所面對(duì)的是當(dāng)前中國(guó)最普遍的、也是最容易被建筑師忽略的居住問題。

技術(shù)進(jìn)步獎(jiǎng)的核心價(jià)值是技術(shù)的切實(shí)進(jìn)步，獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)那些創(chuàng)造性地使用技術(shù)手段解決現(xiàn)實(shí)問題的成果。這一獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)的設(shè)置所面對(duì)的是在當(dāng)代中國(guó)建筑中，設(shè)計(jì)應(yīng)如何駕馭技術(shù)的問題。

建筑成就獎(jiǎng)的核心價(jià)值是建成空間環(huán)境的長(zhǎng)久價(jià)值，獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)那些經(jīng)歷了相當(dāng)?shù)臅r(shí)間考驗(yàn)、展現(xiàn)了建筑的長(zhǎng)久性價(jià)值的典范性成果。這一獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)的設(shè)置所面對(duì)的是當(dāng)前中國(guó)城市因過度求“新”而忽視建成環(huán)境的長(zhǎng)期使用效果、對(duì)正處于建筑生命周期“壯年”的建筑較少受到關(guān)注的問題。

2014年WA中國(guó)建筑獎(jiǎng)的擴(kuò)容受到了各界的關(guān)注，這使我們備感鼓舞。此次WA獎(jiǎng)的擴(kuò)容與改變也引發(fā)了不少的討論（有時(shí)候是爭(zhēng)論，更有時(shí)候是質(zhì)疑），這也同樣使我們感到興奮。在此我們要向所有關(guān)注WA中國(guó)建筑獎(jiǎng)、慷慨地提供建議與意見的人表示感激?；仡櫞舜蜽A獎(jiǎng)的舉辦，我們有如下的觀察。

其一，當(dāng)代中國(guó)建筑創(chuàng)作的多元化是不可逆的。正像在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時(shí)代人們很難再被排他的單一信仰統(tǒng)一一樣，在中國(guó)當(dāng)前以新媒體驅(qū)動(dòng)的建筑信息環(huán)境中，建筑人也很難再被排他的單一建筑價(jià)值觀所統(tǒng)一。過去建立在信息資源不平衡、信息傳播渠道不平衡的基礎(chǔ)之上的建筑話語特權(quán)甚至是話語霸權(quán)，在今天都在迅速地喪失其存在的合法性。黑格爾式的普適終極目標(biāo)與統(tǒng)一過程正在事實(shí)上被康德式的共通判斷力和自主過程所取代。在此次WA獎(jiǎng)的申報(bào)項(xiàng)目中，我們注意到，即使是在領(lǐng)域相對(duì)明確的獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)（如社會(huì)公平獎(jiǎng)和居住貢獻(xiàn)獎(jiǎng)）中，仍然可以看到對(duì)類似問題的出乎意料的多樣化的解答。這種以建筑師的個(gè)人思辨為根基的多元化真不啻為建筑文化的一道福音。我們終于不再需要爭(zhēng)論誰的目標(biāo)比誰的目標(biāo)更正確，而是可以安下心來證明誰在自己的方向上走得更遠(yuǎn)、走得更好了。

其二，當(dāng)代中國(guó)建筑文化的發(fā)展要求更成熟的中國(guó)建筑獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)的出現(xiàn)。申報(bào)2014年WA中國(guó)建筑獎(jiǎng)各獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)的300余項(xiàng)建筑作品在整體上展現(xiàn)了一種令人信服的質(zhì)量。對(duì)此，出席獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)評(píng)審的32位建筑師、學(xué)者均表達(dá)了這樣一種期望，即中國(guó)的高質(zhì)量建筑作品需要有成熟的、高影響力的中國(guó)建筑獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)在全球化的話境中推廣傳播。中國(guó)的建筑獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)，特別是非官方建筑獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)，不應(yīng)滿足于把傳播范圍僅限于國(guó)內(nèi)。

其三，與建筑一樣，建筑獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)也是一項(xiàng)伴隨著遺憾的事業(yè)。2014的WA中國(guó)建筑獎(jiǎng)雖然得到了各界的支持與鼓勵(lì)，但還是有不少遺憾的。這在以下4個(gè)方面表現(xiàn)的猶為突出：

（1）獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)設(shè)置的方向。2014年的WA關(guān)注了建成2年以內(nèi)的建筑和建成5～10年的建筑，但沒有為當(dāng)今建筑創(chuàng)作的一個(gè)越來越重要的領(lǐng)域——舊建筑改造與遺產(chǎn)利用——設(shè)置單獨(dú)的獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)，而這一領(lǐng)域是我們今天的建筑文化中最為活躍的部分，也很有可能是中國(guó)建筑的可見未來中舉足輕重的部分。

（2）獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)彼此之間的界定。設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)驗(yàn)獎(jiǎng)的最大規(guī)模定在3000m2，導(dǎo)致近年來一些非常優(yōu)秀的建筑實(shí)驗(yàn)作品不能申報(bào)設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)驗(yàn)獎(jiǎng)，不得不參與到核心價(jià)值不是設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)驗(yàn)的其他獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)之中。

（3）獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)的申報(bào)規(guī)則。2014年WA中國(guó)建筑獎(jiǎng)的各項(xiàng)獎(jiǎng)除了少數(shù)彼此互斥外（如設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)驗(yàn)與城市貢獻(xiàn)、建筑成就與所有其他獎(jiǎng)），多數(shù)獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)是可以用同一作品重復(fù)申報(bào)的，而且規(guī)則也明確了這一點(diǎn)。不少評(píng)委在評(píng)審過程中認(rèn)為這一規(guī)則是值得商榷的：既然明確各獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)的核心價(jià)值，就應(yīng)要求申報(bào)者根據(jù)其作品的核心價(jià)值擇一獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)申報(bào)。

（4）獲獎(jiǎng)建筑師的分布。本期《世界建筑》的封面上給出了獲獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)目的地域分布，這或多或少可以用近期再受關(guān)注的胡煥庸線加以解釋。獲獎(jiǎng)建筑師集中于北京、上海、深圳、香港等一線城市，這也可以用知識(shí)、技術(shù)與財(cái)力資源的集中來解釋。但女性建筑師與非漢文化背景建筑師在獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)咧械膸捉毕瘎t完全沒有反應(yīng)出相應(yīng)群體在當(dāng)代中國(guó)建筑界的活躍程度。這一點(diǎn)也勢(shì)必應(yīng)引起我們重視。

我們期待在下屆WA中國(guó)建筑獎(jiǎng)回應(yīng)這些問題，與您一起把這一獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)辦得更好。

Like all art awards, architecture awards started with the original intention of selecting and recognising the best works or people. From mid-20th century up to now, along with the development of contemporary architecture discourse, architecture awards have gone far beyond their original role. Some awards have become the disseminators of architecture values and propellers of architecture movements. Most awards are trying to reach out to a much broader audience outside the profession. Architecture awards have become a unique type of architecture media. We are not here to debate on the pros and cons of this identity shift of architecture awards. We are concerned however, with the strategies and processes of architecture awards adapting to the changing time. It is of course better for architecture awards to continue to be positively engaged in the evolution of the story of architecture, rather than feeding the ever-growing consumer appetite for the new, cheerful, silly or simply bizarre.

The World Architecture Awards for Chinese Architecture (WAACA) was initiated by Professor Wang Lu in 2002. It was the first architecture award in mainland China to focus entirely on domestic design experiments. It was immediately well received by the Chinese architecture population, not only for its distinctive identity, but also for its uncompromising approach and independent judgment. After more than a decade since its founding, WAACA is now one of the most revered non-governmental architecture awards in China. WACAA has also enjoyed attention from the international circle.

Lots of things have changed in the Chinese architecture discourse in the past decade, a reality that has to be addressed by all Chinese architecture awards. Ten years ago, it was applausable for architecture to hit headlines by revolting against existing principles, posing striking forms, or shaking public beliefs. Now, it is through sustainability, equality and the creative re-interpretation of traditional wisdom that architecture generates real incentives to contemporary life. Moreover, the spectacles and turbulence introduced by some formal extremists at the turn of the century worldwide have put big question marks behind the word "design experiment", with the word itself being continuously abused, distorted, narrowed and tarnished by a handful of self-promoting international stars. Facing these changes, WAACA has to take a much more open approach, and a much active attitude towards diversity and pluralism.

The team for WAACA 2014 have been meticulously collecting ideas from the best minds in Chinese architecture, including Professor Wang Lu, the founder of WACAA. This lengthy inquiry finally led us to the reforms in WAACA 2014: Multiple categories were created. Diversity in values was encouraged. The line-up of the Jury was expanded. The Jury process was refined. Underlying all these changes was the key concept of pluralism. The key move was the establishment of more than one award categories.

There are six categories in WAACA 2014:

The Design Experiment Award carries on the original WAACA focus. It honours design adventures in small buildings. Comparing with previous WAACAs, this award in 2014 limits the candidate projects to buildings with a floor area of less than 3000 square metres. This limit has caused some arguments.

The Social Equality Award focuses on social equality. It honours projects that assist the poor and theweak through architecture. This category address one overarching issue in China: how to distribute wealth and opportunities more equally across the society, and by doing this benefit more communities in more places?

The City Regeneration award focuses on the urban quality of medium to large scale buildings. It honours medium to large public buildings that have made outstanding contributions to urban environments and urban life. This category addresses the mainstream buildings in the on-going, rapid Chinese urbanisation.

The Housing Award focuses on housing exploration and adventure. It honours projects that provide excellent solutions to the ubiquitous housing problem. Obviously, this category address the housing issue which is so demanding in China yet so often neglected by Chinese architects.

The Technological Innovation Award focuses on technological innovations. It honours buildings that solve practical problems through the creative use of technologies. This category addresses the issue of getting technologies to serve design.

The Achievement Award focuses on the longterm impact of buildings. It honours buildings that have been proven to be excellent solutions by time. This category tries to tackle the issue of the hunger for the new and the general overlook of any building 4-5 years after its completion.

The new format of WAACA 2014 has attracted attention from all corners in the Chinese architecture community. We feel thrilled by this. We are more thrilled by the fact that the new format of WAACA 2014 has also evoked questions and debates. We would like to express our gratitude here to everyone who has kindly contributed their opinion to WAACA. We have some observations on WAACA 2014 ourselves:

[I] The trend of diversification in contemporary Chinese architecture design is irreversible. In the time of Internet, it is no longer possible to unify people's minds for a single, exclusive belief. Similarly, in the time of a new Chinese architecture discourse largely driven by self-media, it is impossible to unify the architects' minds for a single, exclusive idea. The existence of dominant voice supported by a painful imbalance of information and communication resource has been a past. The Hegelian universal agenda and progress has been replaced by the Kantian common judgment and autonomous processes. In WAACA 2014, we saw multiple values and approaches even on one narrow issue, e. g., in the Equality Award and the Housing Award. This is truly great news to Chinese architecture culture. Gone are the useless arguments of rights and wrongs. Replacing them, are now the debate and competition on who has covered more distance in his/her own path.

[II] Better Chinese architecture asks for better Chinese awards. The 300+ candidate projects in WAACA 2014 have demonstrated the quality of contemporary Chinese architecture with convincing evidence. All the jurors have expressed the same feeling that, to send the message of Chinese architecture across the globe, better architecture awards are crucial vehicles. It is time for Chinese architecture awards to take a step further and get into the uncharted water of international territory.

[III] Like architecture, architecture awards are never without regrets. Though WAACA 2014 has been praised by the vast majority people, there are still lots of things that cry out for improvement:

(1) The categories of awards. An important category is missing. WAACA 2014 has covered buildings completed in the last two years and buildings that have built for 5-10 years. Yet no category has been setup particularly for old buildings. This is even more significant an absence considering the vitality in conservation and adaptive reuse. Smart adaptive reuse will surely play a key role in the sustainability of Chinese cities.

(2) The boundary between different categories. In WAACA 2014, the Design Experiment Award is open only to buildings under 3000 square metres. This has caused some headache in a number of cases when a truly experimental building is larger than 3000 square metres.

(3) The rules of submission. Currently, a built project can apply to more than one categories. Many jurors have expressed the point that it could be better, both for WAACA and the candidates, if one building could only apply for one category.

(4) The distribution of winning architects. On the cover of this special issue, there is a map showing the places of the winning/highly commended projects. This conforms to the locations of the major cities. But the virtual absence of female architects, and architects who doesn't bear a Han-Chinese background, is disproportionate to the vividness of these two groups in contemporary Chinese architecture.

We look forward to tackling the abovementioned issues in the next WAACA. Together with the help from you, we can have a WAACA that will be even better next time.

成都寬窄巷子歷史文化保護(hù)區(qū)保護(hù)性改造工程（攝影/Photos: 陳春林/CHEN Chunlin）

清華大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院 /《世界建筑》

2015-03-01